cbgerry wrote:
> On Apr 8, 6:23 pm, kurt wismer <k...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> cbgerry wrote:
>>> On Apr 7, 10:35 am, Virus Guy <V...@Guy.com> wrote:
>>>> Far Canal wrote:
>>>>> Snip the same old bollocks you've posted before.
>>>>> Here's a clue, we ain't interested
>>>> What's your problem?
>>>> The article is right. AV software is not catching exploits as they
>>>> enter the typical system via browsing, and they are not able to keep
>>>> up in real time with new varients. The best they can do now is alert
>>>> you to the odd miscellaneous leftover files that got onto your system
>>>> ->a month ago<-, and more and more they either can't get at access to
>>>> them to get rid of them, or they come back at your next start-up.
>>> ==========================>
>>> Do you know what "heurisitics" is in antivirus ?
>> unfortunately, heuristic technology is not the savior you seem to think
>> it is... retrospective testing by the likes of av-comparatives.org have
>> revealed that heuristics are generally not all that good at detecting
>> new/unknown malware (which is the very class of malware it's supposed to
>> help with)... last time i checked i think the highest detection rate was
>> somewhere in the 50th percentile... of course that's better than
>> nothing, but it still falls far short of the claim of detecting
>> "virtually all viruses and worms" you made further on...
>>
>>> For the early years
>>> of 2000 on, Norton antivirus hjas always been kinown for this feature
>> 2000? heuristics predate that by a rather wide margin...
>>
>>> and as part of it's selloing feature and track record for blocking
>>> virtually all viruses and worms.
>> someone has been filling your head with lies, i'm afraid...
>>
>> --
>> "it's not the right time to be sober
>> now the idiots have taken over
>> spreading like a social cancer,
>> is there an answer?"- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ============================>
> That's some expected reply. Did you know that these independent test
> centers lie
that's some claim... do you have proof to back it up?
> and not me and they lie for illicit gain like magazines
> they sell ???
av-comparatives.org doesn't sell magazines...
> If anybody is lying it would be them and if anybody's
> head is full of it (lies) it would have to be you and not me..... and
> I will tell you why.
>
> This is easily going round and round - a round robin - and you are a
> part of that. If there were labrotories with all these "unknown
> threats" they use as tests to prove the weaknesses of software - any
> type of test program - it would have been stolen and used a long time
> ago by the underworld in malware spybots that are currently
> responsible for up to 70 percent of world spam and 4 percent annually
> of ID Theft in just America and are currently clocked in control of 4
> to 11 percent of world computers.
?? i'm finding your prose very hard to follow... are you making an
argument against the existence of labs with collections of malware that
is unknown to an anti-virus? if so then i would have to point out how
retrospective testing works - they use a slightly old version of a virus
scanner (say 3 months old) and without updating test it against viruses
that have been discovered since it came out... these are viruses the
product probably would detect if the product was up to date, but since
retrospective testing tests the heuristics specifically the
non-heuristic parts of the scanner are kept out of date so that only the
heuristics would be able to raise an alarm...
> The security industry is well aware of that and do know everything
> possible that is used by these independents and for two reasons. Are
> they attempting at some time to be running extortion by producing a
> proof-of-concept scenario. Number two - are they "selling" to the
> underground and what ? Would it surprise you that security software
> can purposely give "false readings" to test equipment for these very
> reasons ? Are you aware of anti-cracking technology that is software
> as well that can be purchased and how this protects security products
> against "probes" for reverse engineering and piracy ?
ugg... it's getting harder and harder to make sense out of this... if
you're making an argument that there's some nefarious or illicit
ulterior motive behind the independent testers i would have to point out
that av-comparatives.org is actually a well respected (even among the av
vendors) independent testing organization...
> What you are replying to basically is the part of the discussion about
> heurisitics fail maybe 50 percent of the time - even if for sake of
> arguement you might call that a worst case scenario as opposed to a
> conservative estimate.
actually 50% is the best case scenario... on average it fails even more
than that...
> Specific products I have used for over four
> years now were Norton Antivirus - 2 years Webroot Spysweeper and Trend
> Micro Antispyware which also have heurisitics technology for spyware
> and related malware. Several times I have manually inspected every
> single file and registry entry in my computer looking for malware.
> None was ever found though I have been hit hundreds of times.
>
> Now according to your perspective that heuristics don't work - I
> should have found at least 150 malware applications. The hits I am
> talking about are not malwares that were removed after scans. I am
> talking about drive by installations. Were are they ? There is not so
> much as a trace present.
this is a deeply flawed logical conclusion... just because heuristics
fail doesn't mean you would find malware that heuristics has missed...
> You said...
> ""QUOTE""
>> someone has been filling your head with lies, i'm afraid...
> "UNQUOTE""
>
> ...well you can be afraid all you want but here you can stop telling
> LIES as you are doing. There is NO ONE filling my head with lies
y'know what, you're right... your point of view seems to be quite
unique... i don't think anyone else can take credit for it...
> - not
> even me. What I have posted here is the truth - I don't lie where pc
> security is concerned. I do know what I am talking about and I am a
> groups owner specializing in malware removal and webmaster/creator of
> the www.BlueCollarPC.Net/ website for the same which is approaching
> one million hits by people who look towards information and advice I
> provide as a source of their computing security needs. Not one of my
> Visitors and Website Users believes I am a liar.
well i never accused you of being a liar, only of being wrong...
> Now the bottom line here is that I am positively sure you will agree
> that any traces or variants of threats from a couple of years ago
> would finally have had defintions written for them to remove them in a
> scan, that for sake of argument where "missed by heurisitics" ? Okay,
> for sake of arguement ? This is what I am telling you - there is no
> such thing. The products ARE that good.
retrospective testing says otherwise...
> You had some kind of problem with the statement about these products's
> heurisitics catch virtually ALL malwares. Well they do and did.
retrospective testing says otherwise...
> Why
> would I - me as who I am with nothing to gain - why would I lie or be
> wrong about that ?
why would you be wrong? people are wrong all the time about all sorts of
things... they don't generally need reasons...
> Who would believe YOU ?
well, it's not so much about believing me as it is about believing
independent testing organizations that even the anti-virus vendors
acknowledge, as well as the words of anti-virus vendors and
professionals themselves... do a google groups search in alt.comp.virus
(or comp.virus, come to think of it) for names like alan solomon, jimmy
kuo, dmitry gryaznov, frisk, etc (there are actually quite a few more
but those are the ones that immediately came to mind) and see if any of
them claim as you do that anti-virus products detect virtually all
malware...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
Reply With Quote